Rare T205 and T207 backs?
 

I've seen many postings on net54, T206Resource and elsewhere ranking scarce T206 backs. I would love to see the same kinds of rankings and checklists for T205 and T207 series and backs. Any suggestions? Or better yet, could someone out there post them to this thread, assuming the research has already been done? I've tried the search function on net54 and struck out. Maybe these lists have been posted here before, and my search missed them? -- Best regards, HoJo

T205s
 

For T205s, there are three "elite" rare backs:

Very tough: 1) Drum (2) Hindu (3) Broadleaf. A little tougher but but not in the same league as aforementioned: American Beauty, Sovereign.
Very common: Sweet Cap, Hassan, Piedmont...i think there are some threads about this but don't know where

Here is what I have for scarcity with most scarce being top and least being the bottom...Drum and Hindu often flip flop as finds are found (several finds of Drum backed T205s in the past 5 years have put the numbers higher than Hindu).
Extremely Scarce
Blank Back
Hindu
Drum
Scarce
Broadleaf greenish
Broadleaf black
American Beauty black
American Beauty green
Piedmont Fact. 42
Cycle
Slightly Rare
Hassan Fact. 30
Sovereign
Honest Long Cut
Common
Hassan Fact. 649
Sweet Cap. black fact. 42
Sweet Cap. black fact. 25
Sweet Cap. red
Polar Bear
Piedmont fact. 25

I think Josh's list is on the money and I agree completely with the Drum/Hindu debate. I have a handful of Drum backs in the T205 set but no Hindus. I think they are tougher and have been for a long time. I agree that finds of Drum backs have caused that back to slip below Hindu backs. Blank backed T205s are almost impossible to find.
The T 207 blank backs are a head scratcher. I remember a guy on ebay (maybe a 54 member, I can't remember), put a ton of blank backed T207s on ebay and the prices were extremely reasonable. This was about 4-5 years ago. I think a lot of collectors backed off because they might have felt they were cut from an advertising sheet (like most T206s) and the prices were more than those of the same cards with Recruit backs, but not all that much more. To my knowledge only cards found with Recruit backs have also been found with blank backs but I would defer to Tim Newcomb on that point.
I believe the prices for Napoleon backs are still a bargain as they are very tough. I have no clue anymore on the Anon/Broadleaf/Cycle backs as they are the toughest but although T207maniacs have their own choice for which is the toughest, Cycles seem to sell for the most at the present time because of their bright red Cycle backs. Please note there are 2 different factories with Anonymous backs- one factory is found only in the cards with the scarce Anon/Broadleaf/Cycle back but the other one is a real mystery as there are theories that every card in the T207 set, from Recruit backs to Anon/Broadleaf/Cycle backs can theoretically be found with that Anonymous back and that factory number. It is 1 am and I too tired and too lazy to check which factory number is which with the Anonymous backs but just go to either Tim N.'s or my articles in the VCBC magazines.

Would this be the Anon Fact 3?

Can you explain the T206 reference as I'm under the impression these BB were cut from a standard sheet prior to the back ad being printed. There are several BB with front errors (ghosts, missing colors, color offset) that I would think would not have been used as an ad display piece.

Imo
 

Cycles not tough

Andrew- yes, Factory No. 3 is correct.
Patrick- I would beg to differ with you on the Cycles not being tough. I think you have to factor in that all non-Recruit back cards are tough in general and then examine which of the Broadleaf/Anonymous/Cycle backs are tougher for each card. I partly agree with you that Cycles are not the toughest of the 3 (I think Anonymous backs are the toughest) but after I completed my set I began to go after a subset of all red Cycle backs for the tough cards and believe me there are several which just don't seem to appear ever with the Cycle backs. I don't know if this is because collectors prefer that bright red Cycle back and hold on to them for their collections as opposed to the drab Anonymous backs or "in-the-middle" Broadleafs...
Chris- yes, there are non-completed sheets of T206s besides advertsing sheets.

And of course the almost impossible Red Cross backed T207s meet all qualifications of being "rare."

While the T207 Red Cross back is undeniably the toughest of the backs in that series [about a dozen are accounted for], the blank back cards are also hard to come by. I have seen even fewer of the "Brown Ink" backs, than blank backs and I believe they are very underrated ... they just do not get the attention of T206 brown backs, perhaps because they have been limited thusfar to the common Recruit brand.

I have had quite a few blank backs over the years and I have found that the T205's are the toughest to find, followed by the T207's and then the T206's, which also has proof cards with blank backs.

I wonder if anyone has seen proof marks on the front of any T cards other than T206 and T3 or had any T 205's or T207's labeled as "Proof" by the grading services?

Hank

Interesting that across the issues and across the sports [baseball and boxing] the T-era Red Cross backs are brutally tough to locate. All I can think is that either the brand was a lousy smoke or had very limited distribution. Anyone have any advertising materials that might shed some light on the latter possibility?

Grazie
 

Thanks for the posts!:D

Hank,
I agree that the "brown ink" backs are indeed very difficult and sometimes misidentified as often the black ink is faded. They do, however, exist on some of the Broadleaf/Cycle/Anon series cards but I would say are exceedingly rare. Here are a couple of Moores which illustrate both versions.

INteresting, possibly a regional?

As someone who collects ancillary items Red Cross didn't seem to be very prolific in putting advertising items out. I think Rmann has a few but I don't think I see any in my meager collection. Maybe that in itself is one of the reasons they didn't do well? Advertising might have helped them.